*/
Legal innovation or risky business? asks Aaron Mayers
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has stormed into the legal realm, raising exciting possibilities and some hair-raising questions. Could AI models like ChatGPT and Bard revolutionise the drafting of contracts? Or might they lead to costly errors and legal nightmares? Here’s what we know so far:
Some forward-thinking corners of the legal world are abuzz with anticipation over the potential for AI models like ChatGPT to streamline the contract drafting process. By analysing vast amounts of data and legal documents, AI can in theory draft contracts quickly and efficiently. The automation of routine legal tasks not only saves time and money but also frees up legal professionals to focus on more complex and valuable issues.
In addition, the increasing prevalence of plugins (a software component that integrates AI capabilities into an existing system or platform) means that there is a seemingly unlimited list of use cases for tools like ChatGPT. This means that integrating ChatGPT with commonly used programmes within Microsoft Office or Google Suite is just the tip of the iceberg.
AI holds a distinct edge over human lawyers in terms of speed and data processing capabilities. The ability to rapidly analyse past contracts, precedent, and legislation should in theory allow AI to draft contracts that are both legally robust and tailored to specific requirements. Moreover, the more it learns from its past work and data sources, AI can help identify potential risks, ensuring a more comprehensive approach to drafting.
As with any technological advancement – particularly those in the early stages of development – AI-driven contract drafting has its pros and cons.
The obvious pros are:
The often-overlooked cons are:
While AI models continue to improve, the prospect of flawless contract drafting remains a distant goal. AI’s capacity to evolve and learn from human input suggests that, with time, we may see AI-generated contracts that are virtually error-free. However, the ever-changing landscape of laws and regulations makes it unlikely that AI will completely replace human expertise.
In my view, the responsible use of today’s AI in drafting contracts must rely heavily on two things:
Prompting, in the context of AI, refers to providing an input, usually in the form of text, to an AI language model, which then generates a relevant response or output based on the given input. Essentially, the prompt serves as a starting point or trigger for the AI model to understand the user’s intent and respond accordingly.
Thorough and accurate prompting is essential when using AI to draft and interpret contracts, as it ensures that the AI model accurately understands the user’s intentions, requirements, and desired outcomes.
The lawyers of tomorrow will likely need to be trained in prompt engineering, because precise and clear prompts will guide AI in generating contract clauses that are legally robust, relevant, and tailored to specific needs. A well-crafted prompt reduces the risk of errors, ambiguities, or omissions, ultimately contributing to a more reliable and efficient contract drafting process.
The importance of expert human input in the creation of contracts, as opposed to relying heavily on AI, lies in several key factors:
AI models like ChatGPT present a promising future for contract drafting, with benefits such as increased efficiency, reduced errors, and greater accessibility. However, at least for now, it is essential to strike a balance between embracing these innovations and maintaining a healthy dose of human judgment. As the legal landscape evolves, combining AI-driven technology with human expertise will be crucial to navigating the complex world of contract drafting.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has stormed into the legal realm, raising exciting possibilities and some hair-raising questions. Could AI models like ChatGPT and Bard revolutionise the drafting of contracts? Or might they lead to costly errors and legal nightmares? Here’s what we know so far:
Some forward-thinking corners of the legal world are abuzz with anticipation over the potential for AI models like ChatGPT to streamline the contract drafting process. By analysing vast amounts of data and legal documents, AI can in theory draft contracts quickly and efficiently. The automation of routine legal tasks not only saves time and money but also frees up legal professionals to focus on more complex and valuable issues.
In addition, the increasing prevalence of plugins (a software component that integrates AI capabilities into an existing system or platform) means that there is a seemingly unlimited list of use cases for tools like ChatGPT. This means that integrating ChatGPT with commonly used programmes within Microsoft Office or Google Suite is just the tip of the iceberg.
AI holds a distinct edge over human lawyers in terms of speed and data processing capabilities. The ability to rapidly analyse past contracts, precedent, and legislation should in theory allow AI to draft contracts that are both legally robust and tailored to specific requirements. Moreover, the more it learns from its past work and data sources, AI can help identify potential risks, ensuring a more comprehensive approach to drafting.
As with any technological advancement – particularly those in the early stages of development – AI-driven contract drafting has its pros and cons.
The obvious pros are:
The often-overlooked cons are:
While AI models continue to improve, the prospect of flawless contract drafting remains a distant goal. AI’s capacity to evolve and learn from human input suggests that, with time, we may see AI-generated contracts that are virtually error-free. However, the ever-changing landscape of laws and regulations makes it unlikely that AI will completely replace human expertise.
In my view, the responsible use of today’s AI in drafting contracts must rely heavily on two things:
Prompting, in the context of AI, refers to providing an input, usually in the form of text, to an AI language model, which then generates a relevant response or output based on the given input. Essentially, the prompt serves as a starting point or trigger for the AI model to understand the user’s intent and respond accordingly.
Thorough and accurate prompting is essential when using AI to draft and interpret contracts, as it ensures that the AI model accurately understands the user’s intentions, requirements, and desired outcomes.
The lawyers of tomorrow will likely need to be trained in prompt engineering, because precise and clear prompts will guide AI in generating contract clauses that are legally robust, relevant, and tailored to specific needs. A well-crafted prompt reduces the risk of errors, ambiguities, or omissions, ultimately contributing to a more reliable and efficient contract drafting process.
The importance of expert human input in the creation of contracts, as opposed to relying heavily on AI, lies in several key factors:
AI models like ChatGPT present a promising future for contract drafting, with benefits such as increased efficiency, reduced errors, and greater accessibility. However, at least for now, it is essential to strike a balance between embracing these innovations and maintaining a healthy dose of human judgment. As the legal landscape evolves, combining AI-driven technology with human expertise will be crucial to navigating the complex world of contract drafting.
Legal innovation or risky business? asks Aaron Mayers
The new Bar Council earnings report presents a collective challenge for the self-employed Bar, remote hearings are changing and Bar Conference is back next month
Launch of the Institute of Neurotechnology and Law
Paul Magrath of ICLR recalls the chequered history of law reporting prior to the 1865 establishment of a Council of Law Reporting
Leading drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory, AlphaBiolabs, has made a £500 donation to North West charity Child Concern as part of its Giving Back campaign
Gail Evans, Technical Trainer at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest trends in illicit drug use as seen in the laboratory, from designer drugs to ‘unexpected’ substances in a donor’s sample
Louise Crush explores the value you can measure in monetary terms alongside the many non-tangible benefits to working with a financial adviser
By Professor Jo Delahunty KC, Kate Brunner KC and Dr Ann Olivarius KC (Hon) OBE
The ‘non-party political’ employment silk advising Labour talks to Stephanie Hayward about employer failure to tackle workplace sexual harassment and the urgent need to reinvent whistleblowing culture
From Parliamentary standards to barrister standards – Kathryn Stone OBE, Chair of the Bar’s regulator, talks to Anthony Inglese CB about roots, respect and reviews
Jessica Foster reviews State Trials and Error – fundraising and showcasing the musical and theatrical talent within the legal profession
Alex Goodman KC on why our electoral laws need an urgent upgrade – they were not designed to address the corruption of popular opinion by AI and deepfakes